A dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes is complete and irrevocable once the donor has clearly and unequivocally manifested the intention to create a trust and has effectively divested himself of all beneficial interest in the property.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants appeal.

( 2 ) FACTS relevant briefly are that Smt Parmeshwari Devi (since dead) was the exclusive owner of the property specified at the foot of the plaint and situate within the municipal limits of Hardwar. On March 13, 1962 she executed a Tamliknama by registered instrument in respect of this property. The property was dedicated by her for use as Dharmashala to be known as "dharmashala Purshottam Das Ji". Purshottam Das deceased was the husband of the executant. A Board of Trustees was created also by her in this deed with herself as the managing trustee. Clause 12 of the deed provides that during her life time she will have the right to increase or decrease the trustees and to wind up the Trust. On Sept. 16, 1968 this Tamliknama was revoked by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi by another registered instrument followed by a registered deed of gift in respect of the said property made by her in favour of Ram Krishan Mission on 17th Sept. , 1968. The gift was accepted by the donee by a resolution dated 9th Nov. , 1968.

( 3 ) THE suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil procedure on Feb. 23, 1970 by the plaintiffs representing the Hindus of the Sanatan faith alleging that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi had no right to revoke the Tamliknama executed by her. The dedication was complete and the property vested in the Dharmashala as an endowment for use of the pilgrims. The pfea taken further was that the gift dated 17th Sept. 1968 was not a conscious act of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi nor was it executed, by way at her free will and, in any case, she was not competent to execute the same. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that, in view of Clause 12 of the Tamliknama, the settlor was competent to revoke the same which she did on Sept. 16, 1978 (1968?) and thereafter executed the deed of gift of her free will for which she was competent.

( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit on Dec. 4, 1971. The view taken was that Smt. Parmeshwari devi executed the deed of gift dated 17th Sept. 1978 of her free will. The plaintiff had the right to sue. The suit had been properly framed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of revocation, it was further held, was reserved by the executant under Clause 12 of the Tamliknama and hence she was competent to revoke the same. The plaintiffs preferred appeal against this decree passed by the trial court. In appeal the case was remanded on Oct. 31, 1973 saying fhat the question relating to the compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil procedure had to be reconsidered. In second appeal filed by the defendants I and 2 against this order of remand, the order was set aside and the lower appellate court was directed to decide the appeal on merit. On March 16, 1978 the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court dated 4th Dec. 1971 and took the view that the endowment created by Smt. Parmeshwari devi was complete and incapable of being revoked by her. No title consequently passed to the defendant No. 1 by the gift dated 17-9-1968. Aggrieved the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this second appeal. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi was impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit. She died during the pendency thereof on May 4, 1974.

( 5 ) THE central question raised by the appellants learned counsel is whether Smt. Parmeshwari devi retained the power and was competent otherwise to revoke the Tamliknama executed by her on March 13, 1962. It was contended that there was no dedication made by her and that under Clause 12 she reserved the power expressly for revocation. The instrument, it was further argued, had to be construed as a deed of gift and hence this was capable of being revoked. For the plaintiff-respondents the contention raised, on the other band, is that the creation of the endowment by the Tamliknama aforesaid was complete and unconditional. The property vested in the Dharmashala